United States v. Mauricio Givens
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8021
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Mauricio Givens pled guilty to bank fraud, was sentenced to 18 months and 4 years' supervised release; release began July 2011.
- In Nov. 2013 a probation officer petitioned to revoke supervised release based on allegations that Givens attempted to drive his car into Steven Queen (aggravated assault) among other charges.
- At the revocation hearing Queen testified as the primary witness; Givens sought to introduce two reports (a police report and a Secret Service report) to impeach Queen’s credibility.
- The district court excluded those reports as hearsay/improper impeachment and nevertheless found by a preponderance that Givens attempted to strike Queen with his vehicle, revoking supervised release.
- Givens appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by excluding hearsay impeachment material and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support revocation.
- The Sixth Circuit majority affirmed, holding exclusion of the proffered hearsay was within the district court’s discretion and that Queen’s live testimony sufficed for a preponderance finding; Judge Clay dissented, arguing the exclusion was legally incorrect and the evidence was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by excluding hearsay impeachment evidence proffered by Givens | Givens: Morrissey’s confrontation right and revocation hearings’ flexible rules permit admission of relevant, reliable hearsay (public records/Secret Service report) to impeach Queen | Government/district court: hearsay impeachment may be excluded; rules of evidence need not be relaxed for supervisee; court may exclude hearsay for reliability and judicial economy | Court: No abuse of discretion — district courts may exclude hearsay in revocation proceedings; exclusion here was within discretion |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to revoke supervised release for attempted vehicular assault | Givens: Queen’s testimony was inconsistent, incredible, and uncorroborated; excluding impeachment evidence rendered the finding unsupported | Government: Preponderance standard satisfied by Queen’s in-court testimony and other supporting facts (photo showing contact) | Court: Sufficient evidence existed (Queen’s testimony met preponderance), so revocation stands |
| Whether revocation hearings require the same evidentiary rules as criminal trials | Givens: Due process requires effective confrontation; revocation proceedings admit reliable hearsay; rules of evidence do not strictly apply | Government: Morrissey allows less-formal procedures; hearsay need not be admitted and trial rules are a safe harbor for district courts | Court: Revocation hearings need not follow trial rules; applying hearsay exclusions is a permissible exercise of discretion |
| Whether district judge must make express "good cause" findings to deny confrontation/impeachment evidence | Givens: Morrissey requires specific findings if confrontation is denied; judge failed to apply correct legal standard | Government: Judge’s discretion to exclude evidence does not require trial-formal findings; exclusion need not be reversible error absent abuse | Court: No reversible error — judge reasonably excluded the proffered hearsay and considered witness credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1969) (administrative proceedings may require procedural protections resembling Federal Rules of Evidence)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole/revocation hearings require certain due-process safeguards, including confrontation unless good cause shown)
- United States v. Stephenson, 928 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1991) (revocation of supervised release reviewed for abuse of discretion; government need prove violation by preponderance)
- United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933 (6th Cir. 1998) (hearsay admissible in revocation proceedings under certain conditions; some hearsay exceptions deemed presumptively reliable)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (trial-court credibility findings deserve deference unless testimony is incredible, internally inconsistent, or contradicted by extrinsic evidence)
- Taylor v. United States Parole Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1984) (focus on reliability of evidence in revocation proceedings, not solely hearsay character)
- Miller v. Field, 35 F.3d 1088 (6th Cir. 1994) (public agency records reflecting the agency’s own observations may be admissible as reliable information)